Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

People v. Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 18, 2000

278 A.D.2d 437; 718 N.Y.S.2d 630; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13208

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Anthony (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Anthony (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Thompson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Thompson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Velez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Kneitel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Young (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered April 7, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*438Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying his application to reopen the Wade/ Dunaway hearing (see, United States v Wade, 388 US 218; Dun-away v New York, 442 US 200). The Supreme Court may reopen a hearing during trial only where, inter alia, the defendant has shown “that additional pertinent facts have been discovered by the defendant which he [or she] could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion” (CPL 710.40 [4]). Here, the new facts upon which the defendant based his application were the circumstances surrounding his arrest, of which he is presumed to have knowledge (see, People v Hankins, 265 AD2d 572; People v Adams, 224 AD2d 433, 434; People v Toxey, 220 AD2d 204, 205; People v Mitchell-Benetiz, 168 AD2d 994).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.